6
A comparative performance analysis of carbonized briquettes and charcoal fuels in Kampala-urban, Uganda Peter Tumutegyereize a,b, , Ronal Mugenyi a , Clever Ketlogetswe b , Jerekias Gandure b a Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda b Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Botswana, Private bag 0061, Gaborone, Botswana abstract article info Article history: Received 30 April 2015 Revised 6 January 2016 Accepted 11 January 2016 Available online xxxx As a result of the rising energy needs and environmental concerns, carbonized briquettes have been looked at as a possible substitute source of energy for charcoal in most of the developing regions. However their use and adoption in Uganda cannot be rated amidst continued increase in charcoal demand from the ever growing urban- ization. This study therefore investigated burning performance and cost in affecting briquette use. A comparative performance analysis was carried out for locally purchased carbonized briquettes made from matooke peels plus other household wastes and charcoal fuel denoted as A, B, C, and D, using a nested design. Caloric value, ash content, moisture content, burning time, and time of boil as well as cost per kilogram and per energy output, were the parameters compared. Results showed that gross caloric values were comparable for the two fuel types in the range of 46636517 kcal/kg. However, the average cost per energy output of briquettes as received was more than twice that of charcoal. This implies that briquettes are not worth their price since their caloric values are comparable to those of charcoal. The least expected was that shape and size of briquettes did not have inuence on burning time and time of boil, an indication of briquette adulteration. Therefore further research needs to look at how the cost per energy output of briquettes can be reduced to be comparable to that of charcoal without compromising the quality. This work will contribute to monitoring policies and promote efcient briquette production methods to reduce the cost of briquettes in order to create a competitive edge against charcoal. But at the moment, charcoal users may not be attracted to briquettes due to their high cost per energy output, calling for an alternative path of household waste utilization to provide sustainable energy. © 2016 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Performance analysis Carbonized briquette Charcoal Nested design Household waste Monitoring policies 1. Introduction As the subject of universal access to clean energy and sustainable environment continues to dominate international debates, the use of charcoal in urban households remains dominant in Sub-Saharan African countries. Karekezi's (Karekezi, 2002) submission on electricity being largely conned to high-income urban households may not hold as far as the use of electricity is concerned. This is because about 48% of the so called high-income urban households use electricity for lighting and only 1.6% use it for cooking, a Uganda case according Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (MEMD) (MEMD, 2006) and Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) (UBOS, 2010). An indication that even those with access to electricity, the capacity to use it and pay for it is limited. With the ever growing urbanization, the demand for charcoal is projected to be about 75% in the tropical countries (May-Tobin, 2011). In Kampala, 76% of the population depends on charcoal as their main source of fuel for cooking (Ferguson et al., 2012). More so, this growing urbanization goes along with challenges of waste disposal management with over 60% of the organic waste coming from households (Ogwueleka, 2013). In Uganda, the composition of urban waste is dominated by banana (matooke peels) at about 34% according to MEMD, (MEMD, 2012) which are said to be utilized in carbonized briquette making according to a number of sources (Anhwange et al., 2009; Natukunda, 2007; Mallimbo & Rudmec, 2009), in some literature called charcoal briquettes (Akowuah et al., 2012). Since even those with access to electricity have no capacity to pay for it, one would have hoped that these carbonized briquettes would be the possible alternative source of energy to the traditional charcoal which impacts negatively on the environment and in addition serves as a waste control strategy. But this seems not to be the trend as their adoption and use cannot be given any possible rating on top of the continued common sight of the matooke peels in the urban (Achidria, 2015). This is not to mention the 10 million tonnes of fuelwood decit projected by 2016 (MEMD, 2005) amidst the large quantities of organic waste posing disposal challenges. Although charcoal's contribution to Uganda's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is around US$ 48 million, the current level of demand, coupled Energy for Sustainable Development 31 (2016) 9196 Corresponding author at: Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda. Tel.: +267 76677845; fax: +256 712 961918. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (P. Tumutegyereize). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2016.01.001 0973-0826/© 2016 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy for Sustainable Development

A comparative performance analysis of carbonized ...pendidikankimia.walisongo.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/... · A comparative performance analysis of carbonized briquettes and charcoal

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    17

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: A comparative performance analysis of carbonized ...pendidikankimia.walisongo.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/... · A comparative performance analysis of carbonized briquettes and charcoal

Energy for Sustainable Development 31 (2016) 91–96

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy for Sustainable Development

A comparative performance analysis of carbonized briquettes andcharcoal fuels in Kampala-urban, Uganda

Peter Tumutegyereize a,b,⁎, Ronal Mugenyi a, Clever Ketlogetswe b, Jerekias Gandure b

a Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Ugandab Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Botswana, Private bag 0061, Gaborone, Botswana

⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of AgriculturaMakerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda. Te712 961918.

E-mail addresses: [email protected], ptumu(P. Tumutegyereize).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2016.01.0010973-0826/© 2016 International Energy Initiative. Publish

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 30 April 2015Revised 6 January 2016Accepted 11 January 2016Available online xxxx

As a result of the rising energy needs and environmental concerns, carbonized briquettes have been looked at asa possible substitute source of energy for charcoal in most of the developing regions. However their use andadoption inUganda cannot be rated amidst continued increase in charcoal demand from the ever growingurban-ization. This study therefore investigated burning performance and cost in affecting briquette use. A comparativeperformance analysis was carried out for locally purchased carbonized briquettesmade frommatooke peels plusother household wastes and charcoal fuel denoted as A, B, C, and D, using a nested design. Calorific value, ashcontent, moisture content, burning time, and time of boil as well as cost per kilogram and per energy output,were the parameters compared. Results showed that gross calorific values were comparable for the two fueltypes in the range of 4663–6517 kcal/kg. However, the average cost per energy output of briquettes as receivedwas more than twice that of charcoal. This implies that briquettes are not worth their price since their calorificvalues are comparable to those of charcoal. The least expected was that shape and size of briquettes did nothave influence on burning time and time of boil, an indication of briquette adulteration. Therefore furtherresearch needs to look at how the cost per energy output of briquettes can be reduced to be comparable tothat of charcoal without compromising the quality. Thisworkwill contribute tomonitoring policies and promoteefficient briquette production methods to reduce the cost of briquettes in order to create a competitive edgeagainst charcoal. But at the moment, charcoal users may not be attracted to briquettes due to their high costper energy output, calling for an alternative path of household waste utilization to provide sustainable energy.

© 2016 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Performance analysisCarbonized briquetteCharcoalNested designHousehold wasteMonitoring policies

1. Introduction

As the subject of universal access to clean energy and sustainableenvironment continues to dominate international debates, the use ofcharcoal in urban households remains dominant in Sub-SaharanAfrican countries. Karekezi's (Karekezi, 2002) submission on electricitybeing largely confined to high-income urban households may not holdas far as the use of electricity is concerned. This is because about 48%of the so called high-income urban households use electricity for lightingand only 1.6% use it for cooking, a Uganda case according Ministry ofEnergy and Mineral Development (MEMD) (MEMD, 2006) and UgandaBureau of Statistics (UBOS) (UBOS, 2010). An indication that eventhose with access to electricity, the capacity to use it and pay for it islimited. With the ever growing urbanization, the demand for charcoalis projected to be about 75% in the tropical countries (May-Tobin,2011). In Kampala, 76% of the population depends on charcoal as their

l and Biosystems Engineering,l.: +267 76677845; fax: +256

[email protected]

ed by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

main source of fuel for cooking (Ferguson et al., 2012). More so, thisgrowing urbanization goes along with challenges of waste disposalmanagement with over 60% of the organic waste coming fromhouseholds (Ogwueleka, 2013).

In Uganda, the composition of urban waste is dominated by banana(matooke peels) at about 34% according to MEMD, (MEMD, 2012)which are said to be utilized in carbonized briquette making accordingto a number of sources (Anhwange et al., 2009; Natukunda, 2007;Mallimbo & Rudmec, 2009), in some literature called charcoal briquettes(Akowuah et al., 2012). Since even thosewith access to electricity have nocapacity to pay for it, one would have hoped that these carbonizedbriquettes would be the possible alternative source of energy to thetraditional charcoal which impacts negatively on the environmentand in addition serves as a waste control strategy. But this seemsnot to be the trend as their adoption and use cannot be given anypossible rating on top of the continued common sight of the matookepeels in the urban (Achidria, 2015). This is not to mention the10 million tonnes of fuelwood deficit projected by 2016 (MEMD,2005) amidst the large quantities of organic waste posing disposalchallenges.

Although charcoal's contribution to Uganda's Gross Domestic Product(GDP) is around US$ 48 million, the current level of demand, coupled

.

Page 2: A comparative performance analysis of carbonized ...pendidikankimia.walisongo.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/... · A comparative performance analysis of carbonized briquettes and charcoal

92 P. Tumutegyereize et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 31 (2016) 91–96

with unsustainable harvesting causes Uganda to be approaching anenergy deficiency (UNDP, 2011). This calls for an alternative sourceof energy. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to find out whycarbonized briquettes have not simulated interest among the end-usersas part of the work in trying to forge a way in which the relativelyabundant organic household waste can be put to use to provide asustainable alternative source of energy to charcoal without joiningthe waste stream to cause pollution.

The process of making carbonized briquettes starts with biomasscollection likematooke peels, drying, carbonization to produce charcoalpowder, mixing charcoal powder with a binder such as starch andothers use soil either as a binder or as a filler for density purposes,compressing the mixture of charcoal powder and binder in molds toproduced the briquettes, drying of the briquettes and packing for sale.This is according to briquetting fact sheet of Practical Action TechnologyChallenging Poverty.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study scope

The study was focused on the briquettes in Kampala markets andcharcoal from various selling points around Kampala, the capital cityof Uganda. A comparative studywasbased on the followingparameters:

i) quality analysis of the briquettes and charcoal on themarket andii) burning time and time of boil for the briquettes and charcoal

using a local ceramic stoveiii) cost-quantity analysis of the briquettes and charcoal on the

market.

2.2. Experimental design

A nested design given by themodel in Eq. 1 was used in this study. Itis able to analyze variability between the two fuel types (briquettes andcharcoal) andwithin. Sample categories designated asA, B, C andD eachin three replications for both briquettes and charcoal which were usedin experimentation were collected from different markets in Kampala.Three replicates were used as the recommended minimum number ofreplicates needed in experiments involving stove testing, (Bailis et al.,2007; Wang et al., 2014). All the briquette samples were carbonizedbut of different shapes, sizes and probably different raw materials dueto differences in color as demonstrated in Fig. 1. Charcoal samples forcomparison were also obtained from four different vendors from fourmarkets to minimize the likelihood of getting samples of one supplierif bought at one location.

Yijk ¼ uþpi þ τ ið Þ j þ ε ijð Þk ð1Þ

Fig. 1. Carbonized briquettes on themarket. A— Pillow Carbonized charcoal dust briquettes; B—saw dust briquettes. It is important to note that differences due to briquette composition or mavendors could not be in position to tell whatmaterials the briquette supplier used orwhat tree sand shape fromdifferentmanufacturers and this informed the choice of the nested design used.matooke peels as one of the main materials from those who supply the peels to them after gat

Where Yijk is the total variation, μ is a constant, ρi is variationbetween factors and in this case briquettes and charcoal, τ(i)j is variationwithin the factors and ε(ij)k is variation due to error. Eq. 1 can further betranslated to Eqs. 2 and 3 for computation of the respective variationswhen μ is zero.

TSS ¼ SSBþ SSWþ SSerror ð2Þ

where TSS is the total sum of square, SSB is the sum of squares betweenthe factors, SSW is the sum of squares within the factors and SSerror isdue to error.

ΣΣΣ Yijk−Y :� �2 ¼ m:n

XM

i‐1

Yi−Y ::� �2 þ n

XM

i−1

Xm

j−1

Yij−Yi� �2

þXM

i−1

Xm

j−1

Xn

k‐1

Yijk−Yij� �2 ð3Þ

for i = 1, 2,..,M, whereM=number of factors, j = 1, 2,..,m, where m=number of locations representing the categories of samples which isequal to four for this work and k = 1, 2,..,n, where n = replication.

2.3. Cost and quality analysis

Weight of the samples whose cost was already known from themarket vendors was measured using an electrical digital weighingscale of ±0.01 g sensitivity. The cost per unit weight of the sampleswas then calculated from the ratio of the cost of bulk to the weightof the bulk. In quality analysis burning time, moisture content (drybasis), calorific value and ash content were the parameters determinedas received. Three grams of the fuel sample were weighed in cruciblesand put in Gallenkamp hot box oven set at a temperature of 105 °Cfor16 h until there was no change in the weight of the sample. Moisturecontent on dry basis was calculated using the Eq. 4 according to ASTM E871-82, (ASTM, 2013).

MCdry ¼ Weight of the sample‐Weight of oven dry sampleWeight of oven dry sample

� 100% ð4Þ

The weighed dry fuel samples from the moisture content tests werethen put in the Carbolite muffle furnace set at a temperature of 550 °Cand heated for 24 h. The crucibles with the ashed samples were thencooled in a desiccator for 2 h. The incombustible residues of the sampleswere weighed. The percentage ash content was calculated using theEq. 5.

Percentage Ash content ¼ Weight of ashOriginal weight of the sample

� 100% ð5Þ

Calorific values of the fuel samples were determined as per the ASTMD 2016-93 standard procedures using the oxygen bomb calorimeter. The

Cylindrical char dust briquettes; C— Pelleted char dust briquettes; D—Hollow carbonizedterials used and tree's species fromwhich charcoal wasmadewere not analyzed for as thepecies the charcoal supplier used. It was not also possible to get briquettes of the same sizeHowever, the researcherwas able to establish thatmajority of briquettemanufacturers usehering them from garbage sites to earn a living shown in Fig. 2.

Page 3: A comparative performance analysis of carbonized ...pendidikankimia.walisongo.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/... · A comparative performance analysis of carbonized briquettes and charcoal

Table 1Nested ANOVA for gross energy value versus fuel types and their categories.

Source of variation df SS MS F P-value

Fuel type 1 1,286,220 1,286,220 2.01756 0.1937Categories 6 3,825,076 637,512.7 2.812123 0.089Error 8 1,813,612 226,701.5Total 15

93P. Tumutegyereize et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 31 (2016) 91–96

price per energy output was determined from the ratio of cost per unitweight to the calorific value of samples, an indication of amount of energytransported or stored for the same mass or volume.

2.4. Water boiling test protocol

Water boiling tests were carried out using a precision scale of ±1 gaccuracy, a K-Type thermocouple digital unit, a small shovel/spatula toremove charcoal from stove, tongs for handling charcoal, timer, and ametal tray to hold charcoal for weighing, at least 15 l of clean water,and a charcoal Ceramic stove from Ugastove. A cooking pan of 2.5 lwas heated and brought to a rolling boil. The boiling temperature ofthe water was measured using the K-Type thermocouple digital unit.The temperature over a five minute period was recorded at full boiland the maximum and minimum temperatures observed during thisperiod were noted. The average value of the maximum and minimumtemperatures was calculated and it was the local boiling point.

To determine time of boil and burning time of fuel, a pot with 2 lof water was put on the stove and the stopwatch started. The K-Typethermocouple digital unit was installed for recording of the watertemperatures until the boiling point was reached. The boiling pointwas considered to be reachedwhen the temperature remained constantfor 10 consecutive seconds. The Time to Boil (TTB) which is the time

Fig. 2.Matooke peels gathered from a garbage site for s

from the start of the stopwatch until the end of the 10 s was recordedfor different samples in batches of 2 l for four to five repeated times, atotal to 8 or 10 l depending on the fuel type category. When the fuelsamples were fully lit, the stopwatch was started and the burningtime which is the total time taken for the fuel to completely burn toashes was determined.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Quality parameters

Figs. 3 (a) and (b), show gross calorific values and moisture contentrespectively of briquettes and charcoal. Gross calorific values of the twofuel types were comparable, with charcoal categories in the range of5364–6517 kcal/kg and briquettes in the range of 4663–6168 kcal/kg.However, the calorific values of charcoal were below the expectedaverage value of 7500 kcal/kg (Grover & Mishra, 1996). This indicatesthat the disappearance of the good hardwood tree species and charcoalproducers are now turning to what used to remain behind (MEMD,2011). Statistical analysis showed that there was no significant differ-ence between calorific values of the two fuel types and within theircategories with approximate P-values of 0.2 and 0.1 respectively at 5%significance level as shown in Anova Table 1. This implies that the energycontent of carbonized briquettes is comparable to that of charcoal.

Moisture content was also found to be not significantly different forthe two fuel types at 5% significant value. All the results for the differentfuel categories were in the same range of less than 8% as shown in Fig. 2(b). Akowuah et al. (Akowuah et al., 2012) obtainedmoisture content of5.7% db when dealing with sawdust carbonized briquettes which iscomparable to the results of this study.

Fig. 4 shows the ash content values which on the other hand werehighly significant for the two fuel types with a P-value of 0.00009 at5% significance level. This may be explained by the loose material usedin briquettemaking compared towoodymaterials for charcoal. However,

ale either for briquette making or animal feeding.

Page 4: A comparative performance analysis of carbonized ...pendidikankimia.walisongo.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/... · A comparative performance analysis of carbonized briquettes and charcoal

Fig. 3. Gross energy calorific values for briquettes and charcoal of different categories as received Legend: error bars showing 5% positive and negative potential error amounts.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Briquettes Charcoal

Per

cent

age

ash

cont

ent (

%)

Fuel types

A

B

C

D

Fig. 4. Percentage ash content for briquettes and charcoal of different categories Legend:Error bars show 5% positive and negative potential error amounts in the results.

94 P. Tumutegyereize et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 31 (2016) 91–96

ash content approximating to 30% for briquette is extremely highcompared to 2.6% reported by Akowuah et al., (Akowuah et al., 2012)for sawdust briquettes. It is surprising that the calorific value reportedby Akowuah et al., (Akowuah et al., 2012) is comparable to what wasrecorded in this study given that the higher the ash content, the lowerthe calorific value (Chaney, 2010). As calorific is also dependent on com-position (Jayanti et al., 2007), briquette calorific values recorded in thisstudy can be attributed to composition given that categories A, C and Dwere seen to have a brownish color in them, an indication of red orbrown soil addition, compared to category B that was showing a pureblack charcoal color. It should be noted that some briquette producersuse clay soil and anthill soil as binders and for weight increase as well,which would contribute a great percentage of ash (Onchieku et al.,2012; Katimbo et al., 2014). This is not tomention that themainmaterialsused like matooke peels or wood would affect calorific values and ashcontent differently.

3.2. Average burning time and time of boil

Table 2 shows the average burning time it took 0.5 kg of each ofthe different categories of briquettes and charcoal to completely burnand the time it took each category to boil the given volume of water(8–10 l) in batches of 2 l at a time. Statistical analysis showed no signif-icant difference with a P-value of 0.556 in burning time between thetwo fuel types (briquettes and charcoal). The Anova table was left outdue to the P-value not being significant. This implies that the equalquantities of briquettes and charcoal take almost the same time produc-ing energy. This nullifies claims by different reports that briquettes takelonger time burning compared to the traditional charcoal. In fact somebriquette producers use this ‘longer time of burning’ as the promotionparameter, which to some extent has discouraged those who boughtthem and found nothing different from charcoal. This has creatednegative impact on the adoption and use of briquettes to some degree.However, looking at the individual categories of briquettes, it can beseen that category B took relatively a shorter time of 114.9 min toburn out compared to the rest. This can be attributed again to composi-tion. Categories A, C and D were seen to have a brownish color in them,an indication of red or brown soil addition, compared to category B thatwas showing a pure black charcoal color. Given that shape and size mayalso contribute to differences in burning time and time to boil, onewould have expected category D with a hole in the middle to take ashorter time of burning and a shorter time of boil than the rest as itoffers a larger surface area and increased air circulation releasing moreenergy per unit time, which was not the case. This again could be dueto the soil added revealed by the brown color.

On the other hand, time of boil showed significant differencebetween briquettes and charcoal with a P-Value of 0.00005. But withinthe individual categories, there was no significant difference as shown

in Anova Table 3. The difference in time of boil between briquettesand charcoal can be explained by the significant ash content in briquetteswhich blocks radiation heat transfer. Again category B of briquettes took22 min comparable to charcoal categories unlike the other briquettecategories. This implies that carbonized briquettes have the potentialto cook or boil the same quantity of food or water in the same timeinterval as charcoal. However, if the brown color in categories A, Cand D indicated an addition of soil, it carries no meaning since only itincreases time of burning, ash content and time of boil, yet, do thesame or less work (amount of water boiled) as one where soil wasnot added, a case of category B.

3.3. Cost-quantity analysis

Figs. 5 (a) and (b) show the average cost per unitweight and cost perunit energy output of the different categories (A, B, C, D) of briquettesand charcoal used in this study. Results showed a significant differencein the cost per unit weight of the two fuel types with a P-value of0.006 at 5% significance level as in Table 4. This significant differenceaffirms to what can be seen in Fig. 5(a) that the cost for any categoryof briquettes was much higher than that of charcoal. The average costper unit weight of briquettes ranged between UGShs 775–1775 equiva-lent to USD/kg 0.31–0.71 as received while that of charcoal rangedbetween USD/kg 0.21–0.25. This shows that the most expensive char-coal was cheaper than the cheapest category of briquettes. Accordingto Kaijuka (Kaijuka, 2007), however an innovation might be, scarceresources do not leave room for any unaffordable options, althoughnecessity is themother of invention. Thus, having considered thequalityparameters of briquettes being comparable to those of charcoal, it can

Page 5: A comparative performance analysis of carbonized ...pendidikankimia.walisongo.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/... · A comparative performance analysis of carbonized briquettes and charcoal

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8

briquettes charcoal

Uni

t cos

t (U

SD

/kg)

Fuel types

A

B

C

D

0

0.00002

0.00004

0.00006

0.00008

0.0001

0.00012

briquettes charcoal

Cos

t per

ene

rgy

outp

ut

(US

D/k

cal)

fuel type

A

B

C

D

A B

Fig 5.Cost per unitweight and per energy output for briquettes and charcoal of different categories Legend: Error bars show5%positive and negative potential error amounts in the results.

Table 2Mean values of burning time, time of boil and amount of water boiled for the tested fuel types.

Briquettes Charcoal

CategoryAverage Average

Burning Time (min) Time of boil (min) Amount of water boiled (L) Burning Time (min) Time of boil (min) Amount of water boiled (L)A 124.5 41.5 8 101.8 20.5 10B 114.9 22.6 10 127.8 19.1 8C 159.1 31.5 10 158.1 24.5 10D 157.2 52.5 10 100.6 24.4 8

Table 3Nested ANOVA for time of boil.

Source of variation df SS MS F P-value

Fuel Type 1 540.6453 540.6453 45.40396 0.000005⁎⁎⁎

Categories 6 71.44469 11.90745 1.325907 0.30205Error 16 143.6897 8.980604Total 23

95P. Tumutegyereize et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 31 (2016) 91–96

be said that howevermuch good briquettesmay be superior to charcoal,their adoption and use may not go far if their cost remains highcompared to that of charcoal. This is the same reason why about 70%of urban households in Uganda still depend on charcoal for cookingyet they are connected to the national grid which they only use forlighting according to Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), (UBOS, 2010).More so, there was a high significant difference in cost per unit weightwithin the different categories with a negligible P-value as shown inTable 4. This was particularly true for briquette categories. To someextent, this difference in cost per unit weight within briquette categoriescan be explained basing on manufacturing practices. However, this canonly be justified if there is a significance difference in their quality param-eters. Otherwise, this too will not promote briquettes when they are ofthe same quality but with high significant difference in cost. Similarlyon average, the cost per unit energy output of briquettes was about twotimes higher than that of charcoal as seen in Fig. 5(b).

Therefore, combining quality parameters with the cost per unitweight of the individual fuel types, it becomes clear that users ofbriquettes would be paying more for less or equal energy output com-pared to charcoal users. Thus, briquettes are not worth the premiumin price. Given that the dynamics of using briquettes are similar tothose of using charcoal, a lot of work is still needed in the briquettingarea if adoption anduse is to be realized. That is to say, as environmentalconcerns continue topress hard and charcoal remains relatively cheaperand better than briquettes, more work remains in lowering the cost ofbriquettes. Otherwise, a more sustainable path is needed throughwhich the materials being used in briquette making like matookepeels and other household wastes can be utilized to provide a cheapersource of energy alternative to charcoal.

4. Conclusions

The gross calorific values andmoisture contentwere comparable forthe two fuel types. However, the cost per energy output of briquettes asreceived was twice and above that of charcoal. This implies that

briquettes are not worth their price since their calorific values are com-parable to those of charcoal. The least expected was that shape and sizeof briquettes did not have influence on burning time and time of boil, anindication of briquette adulterationwith soil. Therefore further researchneeds to look at briquette manufacturing practices that produce bri-quettes whose unit cost per energy output is lower or comparable tothat of charcoal without compromising the quality parameters. It isthe hope of the authors that thisworkwill contribute tomonitoring pol-icies and promoting efficient briquette production methods to ensurethat the quality of both charcoal and briquettes is in the acceptablerange and lower the cost of briquettes in order to create a competitiveedge against charcoal. But at the moment, charcoal users may not beattracted to briquettes due to their high cost per energy output, callingfor an alternative path of household waste utilization to provide sus-tainable energy.

Acknowledgment

This is to acknowledge academic staffmembers of the department ofAgricultural and Biosystems Engineering for their constructive criticsduring data collection. The Special Faculty Allowance extended to stu-dents in the final year for projects at Makerere University funded thiswork. METEGA (Mobility to Enhance Training of Engineering Graduatesin Africa) Project is acknowledged for the scholarship.

Page 6: A comparative performance analysis of carbonized ...pendidikankimia.walisongo.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/... · A comparative performance analysis of carbonized briquettes and charcoal

Table 4Nested ANOVA for cost-quantity analysis versus energy sources (briquettes and charcoal)and their categories.

Source of variation df SS MS F P-value

Fuel type 1 2,518,547 2,518,547 10.01308 0.006011⁎⁎⁎

Categories 6 1,509,154 251,525.7 214.7663 ≫ .0000001⁎⁎⁎

Error 16 18,738.56 1171.16Total 23 4,046,439

96 P. Tumutegyereize et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 31 (2016) 91–96

References

Karekezi S. Poverty and energy in Africa—a brief review. Energy Policy 2002;30(11–12):915–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00047-2.

MEMD. Ministry of energy and mineral development annual report; 2006. Kampala.UBOS. Uganda national household survey 2009/10: socio-economic module. Kampala:

Uganda Bureau of Statistics; 2010. p. 122.May-Tobin C. The root of the problem.What's driving tropical deforestation today?Wood

for fuel. Union of concerned scientists: citizens and scientists for environmental solu-tions. 2011. Retrieved 10/03/2015, fromwww.ucsusa.org/whatsdrivingdeforestation.

Ferguson H, Wamala M, Kristina J. Briquette business in Uganda. The potential forbriquette enterprises to address the sustainability of the Ugandan biomass fuel market;2012. p. 6–19. [73 Wicklow street, London UK].

Ogwueleka TC. Survey of household waste composition and quantities in Abuja, Nigeria.Resour Conserv Recycl 2013;77(0):52–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.05.011.

MEMD. Renewable energy investment guide. Ministry of energy and mineral development;2012. p. 57. Kampala-Uganda.

Anhwange BA, Ugye TJ, Nyiaatagher TD. Chemical composition of Musa sapientum(banana) peels. Electron J Environ, Agric Food Chem 2009;8(6):437–42.

Natukunda C. Uganda: ssebunya uses banana peelings to make charcoal. The new vision;2007. [May 5].

Mallimbo P, Rudmec. Banana peels an alternative way of making charcoal. 2009. Re-trieved May 14, 2015, from https://mallimbo.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/banana-peels-an-alternative-way-of-making-charcoal/.

Akowuah JO, Kemausuor F, Mitchual SJ. Physico-chemical characteristics and marketpotential of sawdust charcoal briquette. In J Energy Environ Eng 2012;3(1):1–6.

Achidria T. Filth chokes Kampala's suburbs.The pearl of Africa's capital, Kampala, is not sofull of pearls anymore. A stroll around the city's suburbs will lead one to a world ofenormous filth. New vision Uganda's leading daily newspaper; 2015. [13/03/2015].

MEMD. Ministry of energy and mineral develoment annual report; 2005. Kampala.UNDP. The energy access situation in developing countries: a review of focusing on the

least developed countries. New York: United Nations Development Programme;2011.

Bailis R, Ogle D, MacCarty M, Still D, Smith KR, Edwards R. The water boiling test (WBT)for household energy and health programme, shell foundation. Version 3. 2007.Retrieved May 13, 2015 from http://www.pciaonline.org/node/1048.

Wang Y, Sohn MD, Wang Y, Lask KM, Kirchstetter TW, Gadgil AJ. How many replicatetests are needed to test cookstove performance and emissions?—three is not alwaysadequate. Energy Sustain Dev 2014;20:21–9.

ASTM. E871-82 (2013), standard test method for moisture analysis of particulate woodfuels. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2013.

Grover PD, Mishra SK. Biomass briquetting: technology and practices. Bangkok, Thailand:FAO Regional Wood Energy Development Programme in Asia publishing; 1996. p.6–17.

MEMD. Ministry of energy and mineral development annual report; 2011. Kampala-Uganda.

Chaney JO. Combustion characteristics of biomass briquettes. University of NottinghamDissertation; 2010.

Jayanti S, Maheswaran K, Saravanan V. Assessment of the effect of high ash content inpulverized coal combustion. Appl Math Model 2007;31(5):934–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2006.03.022.

Onchieku JM, Chikamai BN, Rao MS. Optimum parameters for the formulation of charcoalbriquettes using bagasse and clay as binder. Eur J Sustain Dev 2012;1(3):477–92.

Katimbo A, Kiggundu N, Kizito S, Kivumbi HB, Tumutegyereize P. Potential of densification ofmango waste and effect of binders on produced briquettes. Agric Eng Int CIGR J 2014;16(4).

Kaijuka E. GIS and rural electricity planning in Uganda. J Clean Prod 2007;15(2):203–17.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.057.